2. Time period for lodging the petition 44. The American Convention provides that for a petition to be deemed admissible by the Commission, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the alleged victim is notified of the final judgment. In the case at hand, the petitioner alleges that the two proceedings against him were part of an effort to remove him from his post. 45. The Commission notes that, in view of the sequence of decisions, the ruling on the action of unconstitutionality was allegedly issued on June 16, 2004, and the petition, dated December 16, 2004, sent by post, was received by the IACHR on December 27, 2004. In this connection, as indicated in the Rules of Procedure, the six-month time period is calculated from the date of notification of the ruling of June 16, 2004, issued by the CSJ. Although the Commission does not know the date of notification, even taking into account the date of issuance of the aforementioned ruling and in keeping with IACHR practice in the matter,6 it is reasonable to presume that the petition was lodged in a timely manner, considering the days that elapsed while the petition was being sent through the mails. Consequently, the Commission considers that the instant petition meets the requirement established in Article 46.1.b of the American Convention. 7 3. Duplication of international proceedings 46. The case file does not contain any information that would suggest that the present matter is pending in another international proceeding for settlement or that it has been previously decided on by the Inter-American Commission. Thus, the IACHR concludes that the exceptions provided in Articles 46.1.d and 47.d of the Convention are not applicable. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 47. The Commission does not consider it appropriate at this stage of the procedure to determine whether or not the alleged violations occurred to the detriment of the alleged victims. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR need only, at this point in time, decide whether the allegations state facts which, if proven, would tend to establish violations of the American Convention, as provided in Article 47.b thereof, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” in accordance with paragraph (c) of the same article. 48. The standard for assessing these matters is different from the one required for deciding on the merits of the complaint. The IACHR must undertake a prima facie evaluation to determine whether the complaint demonstrates an apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the American Convention but not whether such a violation occurred.8 In the current stage, a summary review that does not prejudice or advance an opinion on the substance must be conducted. By establishing both an admissibility stage and a merits stage, the Commission’s own Rules of Procedure reflect this distinction between the evaluation required for the Commission to declare a petition admissible and the one required to establish the existence of a violation attributable to the State.9 49. Neither the American Convention nor the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR require petitioners to identify the specific rights allegedly violated by the State in matters submitted to the Commission, even See: IACHR, Report No. 69/08, Petition 681-00, Guillermo Patricio Lynn, Argentina, Admissibility, October 16, 2008, pars. 44-46; Report No. 93/03, Petition 337-07, Samanta Nunes da Silva, Brazil, Admissibility, September 7, 2009, pars. 43-44; Report No. 79/08, Petition 9501, Marcos Alejandro Martín, Argentina, Admissibility, October 17, 2008, pars. 38-39. 6 7 IACHR, Report No. 115/12, Giovanna Janett Vidal Vargas, Chile, Admissibility, November 13, 2012, par. 42. See IACHR, Report No. 128/01, Case 12.367, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser of the Daily Newspaper “La Nación” (Costa Rica), December 3, 2001, par. 50; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, par. 43; Report No. 32/07, Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al. (Chile), April 23, 2007, par. 54. 8 9 See IACHR, Report No. 31/03, Case 12.195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate et al. (Chile), March 7. 2003, par. 41; Report No. 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy (Argentina), February 24, 2004, par. 43; Petition 429-05, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia et al. (Chile), April 23, 2007, par. 54; Petition 581-05, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf LLaupe (Chile), May 2, 2007, par. 46.